Word: interviewer
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Truth be told, most of the people who saw Interview are not likely to queue up for the latest James adaptation, more frightened by the corset-friendly dresses on the poster than they ever will be of Tom Cruise in fangs. By the same token, one has no trouble thinking back three years and imagining James fans professing the deepest scorn for an entertainment as broadly-targeted as Interview With the Vampire. see Brad howl! hear Tom cackle...
...Interview With the Vampire, in turn, follows Lestat (Tom Cruise), a rich, pale solo-flyer who cannot marry anyone because, well, he's undead. Bear with me. As a way out of lonely misery, he bites and converts dashing Louis (Pitt) and encourages him in turn to vampirize and thus "adopt" a young, beautiful, but ill child named Claudia (Kirsten Dunst...
...Wings of the Dove, of course, doesn't have any more chance of making $100 million dollars than Interview With the Vampire had of winning Academy Awards. Which is unfortunate, because of the two, The Wings of the Dove is the far superior--and scarier--vampire movie. Millie, unlike any character in Interview, is hugely sympathetic without being boring, so we are much more horrified by Kate's predatious approaches than we are by Lestat's. Also, as the film rolls on, Millie's skin whitens and her eyes sink back in her skull. We can literally see Kate...
...point is not to disparage Interview With the Vampire, which was a fine film with plenty of chills. The point is that Wings should be incredibly satisfying to the earlier film's audience, if only that film's audience would go. As things stand, The Wings of the Dove is being sold as a Merchant Ivory picture and shepherded into theaters like Sony Harvard Square where no one would think to look for scarefests, however high-class and subtle...
Worse, those members of the broad popular audience who supported Interview and are aware of The Wings of the Dove may assume they wouldn't be interested because the new film is "too art-house," or "too genteel," or "too Bradless." Not much one can do about that third objection, but the other two represent false divisions imposed by film marketers or, indeed, by audiences themselves...